Selecting response anchors with equal intervals for summated rating scales.

Summated rating scales are ubiquitous in organizational research, and there are well-delineated guidelines for scale development (e.g., Hinkin, 1998). Nevertheless, there has been less research on the explicit selection of the response anchors. Constructing survey questions with equal-interval properties (i.e., interval or ratio data) is important if researchers plan to analyze their data using parametric statistics. As such, the primary objectives of the current study were to (a) determine the most common contexts in which summated rating scales are used (e.g., agreement, similarity, frequency, amount, and judgment), (b) determine the most commonly used anchors (e.g., strongly disagree, often, very good), and (c) provide empirical data on the conceptual distance between these anchors. We present the mean and standard deviation of scores for estimates of each anchor and the percentage of distribution overlap between the anchors. Our results provide researchers with data that can be used to guide the selection of verbal anchors with equal-interval properties so as to reduce measurement error and improve confidence in the results of subsequent analyses. We also conducted multiple empirical studies to examine the consequences of measuring constructs with unequal-interval anchors. A clear pattern of results is that correlations involving unequal-interval anchors are consistently weaker than correlations involving equal-interval anchors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

From Outcome to Process Focus: Fostering a More Robust Psychological Science Through Registered Reports and Results-Blind Reviewing.

A variety of alternative mechanisms, strategies, and "ways of doing" have been proposed for improving the rigor and robustness of published research in the psychological sciences in recent years. In this article, we describe two existing but underused publication models-registered reporting (RR) and results-blind reviewing (RBR)-that we believe would contribute in important ways to improving both the conduct and evaluation of psychological research. We first outline the procedures and distinguishing features of both publication pathways and note their value for promoting positive changes to current scientific practices. We posit that a significant value of RR and RBR is their potential to promote a greater focus on the research process (i.e., how and why research is conducted) relative to research outcomes (i.e., what was observed or concluded from research). We conclude by discussing what we perceive to be five common beliefs about RR and RBR practices and attempt to provide a balanced perspective of the realities likely to be experienced with these systems.

Why do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity.

We used psychological contract theory as a framework to meta-analytically review subjective and objective predictors of employees' perceived job insecurity. Seventy-six samples from 68 studies were included in our review. Results revealed that lower levels of job insecurity are associated with having an internal locus of control, lower amounts of role ambiguity and role conflict, greater amounts of organizational communication, less organizational change, younger employees, and white-collar and permanent work. Moderator analyses further revealed that relations between job insecurity and age, gender, education, and formal contracts are moderated by unemployment rates, countries of origin, and type of job insecurity measure. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for psychological contract theory and occupational health, and offer directions for future research.

Development of the just culture assessment tool: measuring the perceptions of health-care professionals in hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Given the growing support for establishing a just patient safety culture in health-care settings, a valid tool is needed to assess and improve just patient safety culture. The purpose of this study was to develop a measure of individual perceptions of just culture for a hospital setting. METHODS: The 27-item survey was administered to 998 members of a health-care staff in a pediatric research hospital as part of the hospital's ongoing patient safety culture assessment process. Subscales included balancing a blame-free approach with accountability, feedback and communication, openness of communication, quality of the event reporting process, continuous improvement, and trust. The final sample of 404 participants (40% response rate) included nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and other hospital staff members involved in patient care. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the internal structure of the measure and reliability analyses were conducted on the subscales. RESULTS: Moderate support for the factor structure was established with confirmatory factor analysis. After modifications were made to improve statistical fit, the final version of the measure included 6 subscales loading onto one higher-order dimension. Additionally, Cronbach α reliability scores for the subscales were positive, with each dimension being above 0.7 with the exception of one. CONCLUSIONS: The instrument designed and tested in this study demonstrated adequate structure and reliability. Given the uniqueness of the current sample, further verification of the JCAT is needed from hospitals that serve broader populations. A validated tool could also be used to evaluate the relation between just culture and patient safety outcomes.